Ann, this is the second time in recent weeks that you've lauded Obama for flip flopping on key parts of his earlier pledges. As I understand it, the reason you find this laudable is that it shows pragmatism and because you think his position now is better than his position then. What I don't understand, and perhaps you could throw light on this, is why you think that his position now is any more sincerely-held than his position then? Why do you conclude from these shifts that his position then was pandering to the left and that he now has the freedom to show his true views, rather than, say, concluding that if he was willing to pander to the left then, perhaps he is pandering to you now?

That would certainly be "winning." Unfortunately, it would also be "dreaming."

Well, the Iranian government, among others, certainly hopes you're right. But there's no reason to believe that this particular insurgency is unwinnable. Insurgencies have been defeated before and will be defeated again. Whether we win this one or not, time will tell.

Maguro said... Well, the Iranian government, among others, certainly hopes you're right. But there's no reason to believe that this particular insurgency is unwinnable. Insurgencies have been defeated before and will be defeated again.

Uh, I hate to break it to you, but getting "a stable, relatively humane, pro-American government in charge of Iraq" has very little to do with defeating an insurgency.

Montagne Mointaigne, why did Obama pick 16 months? Why not 15 or 12? Or Christmas 2009? What is the diplomatic/military rationale behind 16 months? Does the government of Iraq agree with that time period?

And what is the retreat strategy to protect the ever dwindling forces left behind during that 16 month period from an enemy emboldened by our retreat? And what is the strategy if Iraq begins to degenerate during or after the retreat? Does Obama believe America has any responsibility to Iraq during or after our retreat?

The real issue of course is telling an enemy when you are going leave the fight before you have beaten him.

Our military could only hope that our enemy would tell us when they are pulling out and over what period. That would make the job of killing them much easier and a lot more fun. However, our military and diplomatic leaders know our enemy is no where near that stupid.

My guess, McCain's timeframe to get us out of Iraq will coincide with his timeframe for energy independence. Going by what he's said during this campaign, under his leadership it could take up to hundred years. That's leadership.

I read a lengthy bio on Obama's mother in Time. It basically said that she had never demonstrated a lick of sense in her life, bouncing from one quixotic affair to another, and always seriously misestimating who she was dealing with.

Maybe Obama learned how to sound like a quixotic idealist, but how to check the details, too.

They say the apple doesn't fall too far from the tree, but maybe he rolled a bit.

I mean, he's the white board... no pun intended... on which everybody gets to write their very own pet issue.

Then, when he CHANGES his MIND for the highest moral principle (or in order to not make Dennis Kucinich appear rational), the O!zombies smile and nod that he's just so darned smart... even if on the inside they HOPE that he might just pick one policy, one relative, one mentor, and not throw it/them under the bus today...

He's a carnival show. He's Fellini without subtitles.

And he's got to keep the plates spinning until November to have a chance, when the economy will be melting down in earnest by August.

Mr. Renewable Energy and No Drilling and his party are going to have a bit of bother on their way to burning Denver, I'm thinkin'...

Obama's position now is of little consequence to me. What is important is whether he supported or opposed the strategy (the surge) that brought us to the point where the future looks pretty bright for Iraq.

McCain stood steadfast in support of the surge, and his support was critical. Obama opposed it. "Pivoting" is easy, and is meant to distract from his poor judgment in the past. I can't believe that you, as a supporter of the war, would simply let Obama slide on this.

Uh, I hate to break it to you, but getting "a stable, relatively humane, pro-American government in charge of Iraq" has very little to do with defeating an insurgency. Especially the pro-American government part.

Uh, have you noticed that the Iraqi government is negotiating a permanent military alliance with the US right now? Well, they are.

In Virginia we have this saying, "If you don't like the weather today, wait until tomorrow." Well, Obama is proving he's like the weather in Virginia. If you don't like his position today, wait until tomorrow.

Regarding Obama: Who the hell knows what he is going to do after he gets elected? He probably doesn't know himself, he's been winging it on foreign policy for a while now.

I do tend to think that the hard-core anti-war types will be disappointed by Barry O's presidency.

For one thing, no matter how anti-war one might be in theory, you cannot visit Iraq and fail to be impressed with the vast military installations we've built there and the power a US president could project from Iraq.

Obama could see all of this and say to himself "Yes, it was foolish of that stupid Bush to start this war and build these air bases. But I'm in charge now and I'll use this power wisely". A bit like Lord of the Rings, really. And given Obama's somewhat malleable scruples in mundane matters like real estate, I wouldn't be surprised if cast his peacenik ideals aside and said "Yeah, we'll keep the bases in Iraq for a while".

Uh, I hate to break it to you, but getting "a stable, relatively humane, pro-American government in charge of Iraq" has very little to do with defeating an insurgency. Especially the pro-American government part.

Uh, have you noticed that the Iraqi government is negotiating a permanent military alliance with the US right now? Well, they are.

Care to try again? 7:08 PM

Yes. I have some bridge front property in Brooklyn I'd like to discuss with you.

I'm really surprised and disappointed to see that you and Glenn Reynolds are apparently in danger of swallowing an Obama Iraq pivot.

What you are willing to give credit for as "pragmatism" is merely expedience. It is *not* enough that, now, when the writing is on the wall about a pretty positive outcome if we just stay the course, that he starts to change his tune, to finesse his prior views -- the fatal blow IMO is that he's "refining" when its *easy* (WRT the sane 2/3 of the US). All he's doing now is possibly showing he may not be so stupid as to throw away a victory on the verge and commit political suicide as the man-in-the-street learns more about success in Iraq despite the MSM over the remaining months to November.

That is a far, FAR cry from having shown the vision and backbone (aka Bush blind stubborness) it took to commit to making this thing work when things were really rocky over there. In trying to hitch his cart to the "strong horse" *now* in no way repudiates his cut and run position back when things were tough, the very position that, if followed, would have made the turnaround over the last 12 months impossible *guaranteeing* a messy defeat.

No matter what he may say going forward, "refining" his Iraq policy, he will *not* say he was wrong before.

PLEASE don't fall for this opportunistic garbage: "I'm for giving up when the going gets tough, and for sticking it out when its going well."

The two are irreconcilable as the former precludes ever getting to thew latter. Please don't be so desperate to use this as a fig leaf for him so you can give in to the urge to become one of the Annointed at the expense of your logic.

I'm really surprised and disappointed to see that you and Glenn Reynolds are apparently in danger of swallowing an Obama Iraq pivot.

All he's doing now is possibly showing he may not be so stupid as to throw away a victory on the verge and commit political suicide as the man-in-the-street learns more about success in Iraq despite the MSM over the remaining months to November

Unsupported accusations of flip-flopping are much more convincing when they're dispensed with homey Southern sayings.

I'll provide an abject apology to the Althouse commenter who identifies a contradiction in what he's saying now vs. any statement he's made in the past. He's been all about the consultation and the "facts on the ground" from the beginning, and he's not backing out of the 16 month deadline, either.

He's just decided it's time to reel in security moms and glibertarian sci fi nerds.

I love it. So now Iraq no longer has a brutal Stalinist dictator, is moving toward freedom and participating in the community of free nations ... but it was big strategic mistake to liberate them? Maybe it is safe enough to pull our troops out in 18 months, but to claim "it was all a mistake" considering the alternative -- a cold war with a brutal dictator sitting on $150/gallon oil -- is assanine. Don't you just love Obama taking the bow for 5 years + of hard word and political damage -- by others. Disgusting.

I love it. So now Iraq no longer has a brutal Stalinist dictator, is moving toward freedom and participating in the community of free nations ... but it was big strategic mistake to liberate them? Maybe it is safe enough to pull our troops out in 18 months, but to claim "it was all a mistake" considering the alternative -- a cold war with a brutal dictator sitting on $150/gallon oil -- is assanine. Don't you just love Obama taking the bow for 5 years + of hard word and political damage -- by others. Disgusting.

Prof. A: I think (from other posts you've written) that when you say, "Good" about Obama's impending change in position, that's because you approve of a candidate making changes in position to reflect new facts.

But positions should also reflect a candidate's expectations for the future, shouldn't they?

Obama's past and (at this moment) still-current position is that (1) invading Iraq was stupid, that (2) things there are hopelessly bad, and that (3) we should withdraw ASAP.

If he's going to change points (2) and (3), should that at least prompt him to re-evaluate point (1)? (He has to concede that deposing Saddam, by itself, was a good thing, but he's previously argued that it wasn't worth the costs. Now that the costs factor is changing -- especially the estimation of future costs in both blood and treasure -- ought not he re-weigh the benefits now?)

More importantly, to deserve your respect for his change in decision, ought not he admit that his previous projections about point (2) (i.e., whether things were indeed hopeless in Iraq) were completely wrong?

He won't do that, of course. Doing it would be honest, but open him to legitimate criticism for poor judgment. He's always claimed that his opposition to the Iraq war and his insistence on ASAP withdrawal has been evidence of his superior judgment.

Finally: Shouldn't you, in considering how many brownie points Obama gets for changing his position on withdrawing ASAP from Iraq, also deduct points for his original misjudgment? Can you actually give him a net positive score?

The problem with assuming that Obama is being 'pragmatic' now is that the signs that the surge was having an effect and that the trend lines had shifted up instead of down have been there for the past nine months, and have been getting steadily better. And yet, Obama refused to acknowledge them, refused to accept that the war was turning, and stuck to his "begin immediate withdrawal" statements... right up until he clinched the Democratic nomination. THAT is the condition on the ground that changed - his political needs.

Why would you ever vote for a man who is willing to claim that his country is losing a war just so he can win an election?

Also, I was struck by the arrogance of a man with no military experience who says that he is personally going to review the military situation in Iraq and analyze it for himself and decide what to do. In the past, Presidents and Presidential candidates have responded to questions regarding military strategy by saying that they would surround themselves with military experts and listen to their guidance. Even Bush, the 'decider', has consistently said that it's the generals who will decide when the troops should come home - the civilian leadership sets the goals, the military figures out how to make it happen. But not Obama. He's going to exercise his superior intellect and analyze the situation for himself and tell the military what to do.

Look, he might become President, so I prefer him to have better positions. Consistency is good, but not when it means adhering to a bad position. I know some of you just want him to lose, so these aren't considerations for you.

Doyle said..."[...] He's been all about the consultation and the "facts on the ground" from the beginning, and he's not backing out of the 16 month deadline, either."

Doyle is exactly right. Here is how, later today, Obama clarified his so-called softening or, as Republicans called it, "flip-flopping:"

"I have said throughout this campaign that this war was ill-conceived, that it was a strategic blunder and that it needs to come to an end. I have also said I would be deliberate and careful about how we get out. That position has not changed. I am not searching for maneuvering room with respect to that position."

"... I will give [the Joint Chiefs of Staff] a new mission and that is to end this war, responsibly and deliberately, but decisively."

So you see? There is no flip-flop, There is no softening. He's just as committed to losing Iraq now as he has always been.

Reasoning stops when it comes to politics and women. The Prof's position reminded me of my own sister when we were growing up in the old country. My sis would always support the candidates who she considered "cute" regardless of their political positions. Deep down, the Prof and many other people who support the O are not so different.

Obama doesn't have "good" positions Althouse, he has momentarily expedient talking points. Philosophically he remains a black radical marxist yearning for the power to "remake" the country. That's not gonna sell though, so it's sweet teleprompter messages du jour for the gullible. Make the guppy sound now.

Reasoning stops when it comes to politics and women. The Prof's position reminded me of my own sister when we were growing up in the old country. My sis would always support the candidates who she considered "cute" regardless of their political positions. Deep down, the Prof and many other people who support the O are not so different.

Ann Althouse said..."Look, he might become President, so I prefer him to have better positions. Consistency is good, but not when it means adhering to a bad position."

Assumes the answer. To reformulate the point above into your argot here, Obama claims that what he says now is "his position." What he said then was also claimed to be "his position." We know - surely we know now - that he will over-parse, talk around and shift on what he claims his position is based on political expediency. So what makes you think that what he says now is what he actually thinks, what he will actually do? I.e., you think it's "good" if he isn't going to do something stupid vis-a-vis Iraq. We all agree, I think. But why do you think he's not going to do something stupid vis-a-vis Iraq? Because he says so now? Last week he said something different! So why do you think next week, he'll be saying what he says now?

And why, if he "might become President," does that not require heightened skepticism about whether what he claims to be his view really is his view? Bill Clinton said "it depends on what your definition of 'is' is," but Obama seems to live that as a kind of zen parsing philosophy.

Doyle said..."Ann I predict you're going to see a different side of some of your commenters if you openly support Obama."

You underestimate the loyalty some of us have. Plenty of us disagree with her on some issues, but that doesn't mean we don't still like her. Speaking for myself, I can't think of anything she could say that would sour me on her, and I think you'll find that sentiment widespread among the regulars here.

He can't be allowed to get away with this flip. His sole qualification for office is supposed to be his superior judgement. As president he would never have supported the surge. He can't be allowed to take credit for the successes of Bush/McCain's strategy. This is the same as being in favor of the Heller ruling but being opposed to the judges who produced the ruling.

Ann I predict you're going to see a different side of some of your commenters if you openly support Obama. Not me, mind you. But the ones who liked you when you were defending Bush.

Oh, it will be glorious to behold. What the regulars do to Ann will resemble nothing else so much as the end of "Suddenly Last Summer," when the little native boys turn on Katherine Hepburn's gay son and literally eat him alive.

Ann: "Look, he might become President, so I prefer him to have better positions. Consistency is good, but not when it means adhering to a bad position."

While I agree that foolish consistency is not a trait I value in a president, I don't think we are seeing an Obama who is actually changing his positions. Rather, we are seeing an Obama who is trying to convince us that he is changing his positions.

I think the positions he is moving towards now are not those he actually holds in his heart and mind. Obama's track record and the environment in which he was nurtured as a politician and TUCC congregant argue that he will "change" back to his actual leftist positions after he becomes president.

I believe these new positions are alien to him and that he's simply very good at convincing people that they aren't.

Am I the only one who's finding it hilarious to find conservatives closely interrogating, and in some cases attacking, Althouse, as she weighs ways in which Obama MAY be "good enough"--against a backdrop of them having come to the conclusion that McCain is "good enough" despite his lack of exemplification of their own ideals?

For crying out loud, take a break to look in a mirror, will you?

And Althouse hasn't even "declared" for anyone yet, unlike some on the other side whom I could name.

Keep going like that, and you make it awfully hard for onlookers not to conclude that what you're really upset about is not principle(s) at all, but rather that Althouse might not vote Republican. Else, how do you reconcile questioning her pondering "good enough?" with regard to either candidate (or both candidates) and working through what she's going to have to settle for with your obviously having already had to go to that place with regard to McCain. Whom you're now championing.

As I said, there's a certain hilarity to the whole thing.

___

My vote is still not allocated, either, for the record. Don't like it? Too bad.

What is your timetable for America leaving 110 other nations in which we have civilian or military forces and advisors there or as regular visitors on security programs? Places like Canada, Thailand, India, Cambodia, Poland, Sweden, Ghana, Columbia, Mexico,

Oh, that's right, you only want to run from Iraq...

The rest of the nations have not created such Lefty fear about American presence.******************

Ah, thus spake the Oratorical Master on message of his Team Axelrod writing staff. A consistent 1 1/3rd year full withdrawal - with flexibility.

Sounds like Obama touting his Patriotism hypothetically as "Straight, but slightly bent as conditions warrant".With the usual love of his worshippers: You the man! Tell it to the Power, Barack. Touch me and heal me of AIDs, Black Messiah!!

The guy actually has been hedging what the troops must do before they retreat in defeat - 1st he wanted a force to hold the Green Zone only, and he has been expanding his uses since then to sound remarkably like Petraeus on the matter of country-wide stability and not letting AQ rebound (previously dismissed as a phony "distraction" of the US failing at getting the REAL AQ - 6 people in Pakistan, and then getting them good lawyers).

***************

I actually admire Obama for starting to prepare the ground for hedging on his Leftist position of running like scared kids out of Iraq. Unfortunately, if reflects the liberal Democrat belief that national security is a matter of pure political opportunism - not an area where politics should take a back seat to what is best for our vital interests and security of our citizens.

Just why Obama has ditched people he swore would remain his most valuable lifetime mentors, and why he did his FISA vote - no deep beliefs reside in the guy. He is someone that powerful mentors - jewish billionaires, patronage black leaders, Daley Machine discovered in the early 90s - that made the perfect empty vessel to fill and program - and it would drip honey from it's lips.

It reconfirms the utter fecklessness of Democrats and the more Obama weasels about it, the worse they will look, the distrust they have earned since Vietnam will be locked in for another 30 years.

As Obama flails on:

1. Why it is so important to still leave a country in a war we are winning, in 16 months, and accept defeat.

2. A country where we have relocated assets once in KSA where the Arab countries did all say it was a needless provocation. Which is now the most important strategic on the planet for finishing AQ as a force in the Arab part of the Muslim world, and for control of the way the global energy supply is continued under international agreement.Where he still is calling for the removal of troops and instead putting them in a region of little strategic value, mainly to bring 6 fugitives "to justice" - and the Hard Left wants to both block Obama seeking the expedient political middle - and oppose anyone helping us in Afghanistan, or being "complicit" in violating the national sovereignity of Pakistan.

3. And Team Axelrod still hasn't figured out to reposition "No War WIth Iran, Ever!!" Obama scripts so he doesn't gut the ability of the US to deal with Iran (if necessary)by abandoning all bases we have now in Iraq..

Am I the only one who's finding it hilarious to find conservatives closely interrogating, and in some cases attacking, Althouse, as she weighs ways in which Obama MAY be "good enough"--against a backdrop of them having come to the conclusion that McCain is "good enough" despite his lack of exemplification of their own ideals?

Well, yeah, quite possibly you are. McCain is, for better or worse, a well known commodity. Obama meanwhile strives to continue being a blank slate upon which he can write whatever he wants, erase it, then rewrite again. That's one of the major differences between them.

I could never figure out why a half million Christians fled Iraq to neighbor countries like Syria for so called "safe haven". Or why so many with education or money decided to leave rather abruptly after we went through all that trouble and finally liberated them and freed them from Saddam.

On the other hand, Althouse is NOT. (It's a puzzlement to me as why that should come as a shock.)

Is it that you viewed the decision she made with regard to the 2004 election as a "conversion"--rather than an ordering of principles, given the ultimate choice of candidates offered as against the contexts and situations which she determined were most key?

For the McCain campaign to put out a memo to reporters claiming that Obama has adopted McCain's policy only shows that his advisors believe that a sizable percentage of the political press is made up of incorrigible morons. And it's hard to disagree with the judgment.

It's amazing how many people here are outraged that Obama would take a position more to their liking. Or at the idea that *gasp* the Democratic nominee might adopt a more moderate platform once the primaries are locked up. Never saw that coming! Nope, no siree.

People, it's okay to not like Obama. But it will help everyone's case if you bring more relevant criticism than "he's taking better, smarter, less marxist views than before - therefore we shouldn't elect him."

I've seen of comments from people who were criticizing Obama in the past about "How could he continue to be associated with Rev. Wright..." and are now criticizing Obama for "throwing Rev. Wright under a bus." And now they're criticizing a politician for being inconsistent (again, *gasp*).

Personally, I like both the choices for President this year more any of the choices in the past two elections. And that's something I'm very happy about this 4th of July (well, in 9 minutes here in CST)

Six months ago, everyone with a brain knew that Obama was going to tack left to win the nomination, then tack right to win the general election. Everyone knew that his 'Iraq is lost, time to get out' rhetoric could not survive the facts emerging on the ground. So this move was completely predictable. As such, it says absolutely nothing about Obama's real beliefs.

So, how to do tell what he really believes, and what he'll really do? The only option you have is to look at his record. Unfortunately, he doesn't have much of a record, because he doesn't have a lot of qualifications or experience. He hasn't even finished a single term as a Senator, and he spent most of that term dodging difficult votes to set himself up for a run at the presidency.

But what records there are paint a picture of a politician from the far left. I don't believe his triangulation about gun rights, because before he ran for president he had a long history of antipathy towards guns and gun owners, and supported every anti-gun measure he could, include outright bans of handguns and even semi-automatic rifles.

He has a radical past, and by his own admission hung out with radicals and Marxists in his youth. He attended the most radical church in Chicago for 20 years. The National Journal, a non-partisan source, said that he has the most liberal voting record of any Senator in Washington.

Given all that, and given that this tack to the center was completely predictable, why would ANYONE believe a word of it?

(a)he doesn't have much of a record, because he doesn't have a lot of qualifications or experience. He hasn't even finished a single term as a Senator, and he spent most of that term dodging difficult votes to set himself up for a run at the presidency.

(b) The National Journal, a non-partisan source, said that he has the most liberal voting record of any Senator in Washington.

Question: just how stupid, or deliberately disingenuous, would you have to be to make both those claims simultaneously?

No, that's not me being nuts. (Well, it might be me being nuts, but not just and only that.) That's a reference to a famous quote, and not just one of my favorites of Twain's, but one of my favorites in general.

You the man! Tell it to the Power, Barack. Touch me and heal me of AIDs, Black Messiah!!

He is someone that powerful mentors - jewish billionaires....

Okay.

Racist slur, check.

Crude anti-semitism, check.

Dude -- can't you throw in a fag joke and go for the trifecta?

Thanks!!!!

Black Messiah? Isn't he the guy that changed his whole speaking style in the late 90s to go away from "absolutely white" to the cadence and style of a black preacher? And he is the guy who said that the his nomination is when future generations will mark the moment when the sick were healed, good jobs for everyone began to become a reality, the ocean's rise slowed, and the planet began to heal.

And given that, considering nearly every Queen in Hollywood and Manhattan is an Obama supporter, having Black Messiah healing them with a touch is sadly in their wish list. I myself would vote for the Great Man who claims future generations will mark the day the Day his Greatness was nominated, of he can also turn water into gasoline and home heating oil with a good 'ol black preacher affectation in his voice and a laying on of hands if he can't just talk the gasoline from water by reading his Teleprompter.

As for the Jewish billionaires of the Klutznik, Crown, Pritzker Families...they adopted him as their next black pet after Valerie Jarrett..had him winging on their jets to Aspen in the early 90s and mentored him from then on with their control of jobs at U of Chicago by their seats of the Board of Trustees.

Both Obama and his wife, who dropped her law degree in 1993 after struggling in practice - had their patronage through the clout billionaires and Jarrett - the pet that rose like the Obamas rose. Special, high paying jobs that required only part-time presence.

Their religion is important because it explains Obama's ties to radical chic groups The Families all dabbled in, the SDS sorts and Bill Ayers. It also debunks claims that Obama was a secret Muslim because The Families all pay homage to Jewish Affairs, Israel and Zionism even as key members are hard Left.I suppose if a coterie of billionaire Chinese were making pets of promising black Chicago politicians they spotted, or Greek Orthodox billionaires - that would also be noteworthy.

The thing that worries me most about Obama's "withdraw in 16 months unless we don't" is his follow-on statement that he will leave enough troops in place to protect our diplomatic missions, etc. (Gen. McPeak spoke of an 80,000 member "strike force", which is around half the forces that are there now). Also that if Al-Qaeda establishes a base in Iraq after we pull out, we'll go back in to deal with it. In other words, the invasion was a gross strategic blunder, and we'll stand ready to do it again!

What this ignores is: one of the keys to success of the surge has been an improvement in the U.S. military's use of local Iraqi intel networks, both formal and informal. The "Anbar Awakening" would have been impossible without this.

If we withdraw, all those gains go bye-bye. If we go back in as Obama has said that we might, we will start all over from scratch, and of course no one will want to work with us again. If Al-Qaeda re-establishes in Iraq, we'll be the last to know about it, or to be in a position to do anything about it.

perrymasonmint said"Question: just how stupid, or deliberately disingenuous, would you have to be to make both those claims simultaneously?"

Easily, if you have even the vaguest grasp of mathematics.

Both of the the other commenter's statements can be simultaneously true: Obama has little track record to go by (including all of those strategic [deceptive?] 'present' votes) -- AND... that the record he *does* leave is overwhelmingly liberal.

Oh, for sure it's what I was expecting. Say anything it takes to get elected, even if it contradicts what you said yesterday - that's the Obama way.

What will he do once in office, though? Probably whatever he really wants to. Based on his past actions, then, what he really wants to be is the most leftist President in our history. He's been allowed to get away with so much, see, that he believes he can do what he wants and then talk himself out of any firestorm he creates. And why shouldn't he believe that? He's been allowed to get away with it time and time again. Any other politician in recent memory would be crucified for switching positions as often and as incoherently as Obama has, but not only does he get away with it, he convinces people holding opposite views to each believe that Obama *really* agrees with them!

Look, he might become President, so I prefer him to have better positions. Consistency is good, but not when it means adhering to a bad position.

This is airhead territory, Ann. His positions are just words and anyone with a lick of sense can see that. It's not that he changed his position on (pick one: FISA, gun control, Iraq, campaign finance...) it's that he's changed them all and in a matter of weeks. Doesn't that mean he has no "positions" at all?

Let's rewrite your comment so that it reflects reality.

Look, he might become President, so I prefer him to have better statements to the press. Consistency is good, but not when it means adhering to a bad statement to the press.

This doesn't even begin to address one of the key elements of any decent president - courage. If anyone can claim this man has courage in any amount at all, I'd love to hear it. Everything we've seen so far indicates he's an invertebrate.

If you were thinking this through instead of projecting your desires upon him, shouldn't you be getting realy, really concerned right about now? If it were me, I'd want him to cling to some positions I disagreed with just to show me he had a spine.

Instability, inhumanity, and anti-Americanism have lurked and swirled around this great country throughout its history. Benedict Arnold, Copperhead Democrats, the Weather Underground, the Carter Administration are but four examples.

We should never take for granted the rights and equality endowed to us by our Creator. Iraqis, Americans, and all people who wish to live independent and free must forever be prepared to fight to assert those rights.

Look, he might become President, so I prefer him to have better positions. Consistency is good, but not when it means adhering to a bad position. I know some of you just want him to lose, so these aren't considerations for you.

Consistency is good. But consistency to principle and of character are even better.

This guy hasn't been consistent on anything and yet you seem to believe he will be consistent on these more moderate positions once he is in power? Why would you think that? On what evidence do you base this trust?

Also, yes, I am one of those who want him to lose, but it is BECAUSE of these inconsistencies and the probability that he will go with his old positions rather than these new ones. My evidence to not trust him is what he does now, what he has done during his entire career.

I guess people really don't get the whole "thinking in real time" vs. "thesis-driven blogging."

There's not a single word in Ann's post here that indicates that she "trusts" Sen. Obama. There have been many words on her blog over the years to indicate that she doesn't "trust" (or love) politicians in general.

Both of the the other commenter's statements can be simultaneously true: Obama has little track record to go by (including all of those strategic [deceptive?] 'present' votes) -- AND... that the record he *does* leave is overwhelmingly liberal.

Its total quantity vs percentages.

As someone with a degree in Math, I also understand that the smaller the sample set, the wider the margin of error. So both statements can be 'true' but the idea that Obama is has the most liberal voting record, given his relatively few votes, would then be highly unreliable.

the idea that Obama is has the most liberal voting record, given his relatively few votes, would then be highly unreliable

Hardly. Students t-test doesn't take that many samples to get to a pretty high degree of confidence. With 50 or so votes, you'd have a really good reading of the man, if you want to use statistical analysis. Given that his voting record is intensely partisan, you'd need even fewer than that. Since he has considerably more than 50 votes and they almost all go in one direction, he most certainly has shown himself to be a far left liberal. He may not be the most liberal, but statistical tests will probably not rule that out.

k t cat. Yes, you can create a statistically valid study with only a few samples that has high reliability.

This is not such a study - we can't control the variables. We're only analyzing data here which significantly ties our hands with statistical analysis. We're not polling or writing a survey to test a hypothesis.

For the vast majority of the time Obama has been a senator the Democrats have had control of the Senate - and thus the sample will be biased towards democratic bills. This would really skew any comparison of Obama with Democrats who have been there longer. Unless you limit everyone to the same period of time that Obama has been a senator. And I believe if you do that, he'll be along with plenty of other Democrats. (Unless you think he departs from the party line to be more liberal than all the other democrats in the past 50 votes).

I don't care who Ann supports as long as the conversation is interesting. What does distress me is the meme. We women are taught from an early age to never pick a man based upon what we hope or expect him to become. Ann, dear, I see heartache ahead.

perrymasonmint said"Question: just how stupid, or deliberately disingenuous, would you have to be to make both those claims simultaneously?"

Easily, if you have even the vaguest grasp of mathematics.

Both of the the other commenter's statements can be simultaneously true: Obama has little track record to go by (including all of those strategic [deceptive?] 'present' votes) -- AND... that the record he *does* leave is overwhelmingly liberal.

Its total quantity vs percentages.

So despite the fact that Obama has no record, he still has a record as the most liberal senator.

"Look, he might become President, so I prefer him to have better positions."

Who could quarrel with that? OK, sure, but I mean who among your reasonable commenters? ISTM the real question is, why do we think these particular set of positions is more real than any of the previous ones? What do you know that makes you certain the wheel will stop spinning on this winning number?

"I know some of you just want him to lose, so these aren't considerations for you."

I see it quite differently: the tabla rasa aspect of Obama is precisely why we want him to lose!